Development and comparison of TACAMO icon design formats.

128 Pages·1.6 MB·en_US

by  Sanders, William D.;Lind, Judith H.

Unclassified
SECURITYCLASSIFICATION OFTHISPAGE
FormApproved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No.0704-0188
1a. REPORTSECURITYCLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
UNCLASSIFIED
2a. SECURITYCLASSIFICATIONAUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITYOF REPORT
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
2b. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADINGSCHEDULE
4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORTNUMBER(S) 5. MONITORINGORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
6a. NAMEOF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICESYMBOL! 7a. NAMEOF MONITORING ORGANIZATION
Naval Postgraduate School OR
6c. ADDRESS (City,State,andZIPCode) 7b.ADDRESS (City,State,andZIPCode)
Monterey, CA93943-5000
8a. NAMEOF FUNDING/SPONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENTINSTRUMENTIDENTIFICATION NUMBER
ORGANIZATION
8c.ADDRESS (City, State,andZIP Code) 10. SOURCEOF FUNDING NUMBERS
PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT
ELEMENTNO. NO. NO. ACCESSION NO
11.TITLE (Including SecurityClassification)
Development and Comparison ofTACAMO Icon Design Formats
12 PERSONALAUTHOR(S)
SANDERS, William Duward
13 TYPEOF REPORT 13b.TIMECOVERED 14. DATEOF REPORT(Year, Month, Day) 15. PageCount
Master'sthesis FROM TO 1992, MARCH 118
16. SUPPLEMENTALNOTATION
Theviews expressed inthisthesis arethose oftheauthorand do not reflectthe official policy or position ofthe
Department of Defense orthe U.S. Government.
17. COSATI CODES 18.SUBJECTTERMS (Continueonreverseifnecessaryand identifybyblocknumber)
FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP TACAMO, Icons, Human-computer interaction, Symbols, Labels, Software
interface design, System Design, Direct manipulation interface
19.ABSTRACT(Continueon reverseIfnecessaryand identifybyblocknumber)
The purpose ofthis studywas to develop and evaluate a set of icons forthe next generation message processing
system for the TACAMO airborne strategic communications platform. An icon set for a proposed interface was
developedthroughthe useofan iconproduction methodtest,thatis, potential usersdesigned candidate iconsthat
were meaningful to them. These icons were then refined for discriminability via input from a user survey. To
determineifwell-developed iconswithalphanumericlabelsyieldasignificantperformanceadvantageover thesame
iconswithoutlabels,anexperimentinvolvingtraineduserswasconducted usingaresponsetimemodel. Subtractive
logic was used to measure icon identificationtimes asa function ofwhethertheywere orwere not labeled. When
speed of performanceand rate of errorswerecompared, labeling of icons resulted in significantly longer response
times, yetdid not result in fewererrorsforthetested icon set. It is recommended that the unlabeled set of icons be
used for TACAMO's next generation message processing system, and that the icon production method be used
more widelyto involve users in interfacedesign.
20 DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILTIYOFABSTRACT 1a. REPORTSECURITYCLASSIFICATION
IXl UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED [J SAMEASRPT.D DTIC Unclassified
22a. NAMEOF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b.TELEPHONE(IncludeArea Code) 22c. OFFICESYMBOL
Judith H. Lind [phone] OR/Li
DD Form 1473, JUN 86 Previouseditionsareobselete. SECURITYCLASSIFICATION OFTHIS PAGE
S/N 0102-LF-014-6603 Unclassified
TP^ftAZi^
i
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Development and Comparison
of
TACAMO
Icon Design Formats
by
William D. Sanders
Lieutenant, United States Navy
B.S., United States Naval Academy, 1984
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
from the
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
March 1992
—
~ . . / /
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a set of icons for the
TACAMO
next generation message processing system for the airborne strategic
communications platform. An icon set for a proposed interface was developed
through the use of an icon production method test, that is, potential users designed
candidate icons that were meaningful to them. These icons were then refined for
discriminability via input from a user survey. To determine if well-developed icons
with alphanumeric labels yield a significant performance advantage over the same
icons without labels, an experiment involving trained users was conducted using a
response time model. Subtractive logic was used to measure icon identificationtimes
as a function ofwhether theywere or were not labeled. When speed ofperformance
and rate of errors were compared, labeling of icons resulted in significantly longer
response times, yet did not result in fewer errors for the tested icon set. It is
recommended that the unlabeled set of icons be used for TACAMO's next
generation message processing system, and that the icon production method be used
more widely to involve users in interface design.
in
dd
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
I. 1
A. TACAMO STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS 1
GRAPHICAL INTERFACE FOR MILITARY COMPUTER
B.
APPLICATIONS
4
1. Performance Criteria 4
2. Designing the Optimal Icon 5
3. Icons: The Label Debate 6
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
C. 7
SCOPE
D. 8
II. INTERFACE DEVELOPMENT AND INITIAL ICON DESIGN 9
A. TACAMO HUMAN FACTORS ANALYSIS 9
MMPS PROTOTYPE SCREEN LAYOUT AND MENU
B.
DESIGN
11
C. PICTORIAL SYMBOLS AND INITIAL MMPS ICON
DESIGNS
12
ICON PRODUCTION METHOD TEST
III. 14
BACKGROUND
A. 14
METHOD
B. 15
IV
DTTDLEY K
MO]
30a
1. Questionnaire Development 15
2. Participants 15
3. Procedure 16
RESULTS
C. 16
ICON CANDIDATES
IV. 18
A. OVERVIEW OF ICON DEVELOPMENT 18
REFINEMENT
B. 18
C. DISCRIMINABILITY ANALYSIS 20
D. ICON IDENTIFICATION SURVEY 22
1. Questionnaire Development 22
2. Respondents 23
3. Task 23
RESULTS
E. 23
V. ICON DESIGN FORMAT EXPERIMENT 25
BACKGROUND
A. 25
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
B. 26
1. Reaction Time Model 27
2. Measuring Acquisition Time 28
METHOD
C. 28
1. Subjects 28
2. Stimuli 28
3. Apparatus 29
4. Procedure 30
a. Training 30
b. Baseline Reaction Time Testing 30
c. Icon Recognition Tests 31
5. Performance Measures 32
D. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 32
1. Subject Variables 32
2. Baseline Reaction Test 32
3. Performance Measures 33
4. Error Analysis 35
—
A
5. Labels Closer Look 35
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
VI. 38
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
A. 38
TACAMO ICONS FOR THE MILSTAR MESSAGE
B.
PROCESSING SYSTEM
38
1. Icon Designs 38
2. Labeling of Icons 39
C. ICON DEVELOPMENT METHOD 39
D. LIMITATIONS OF GRAPHICAL INTERFACES 40
VI